Sri Lanka has been Asia's oldest and most prolific democracy. Our people, defined by the rough geological boundaries of the country today, have always had the opportunity to elect leaders one way or the other for exactly 190 years now. (yes, the Colebrook Reform of 1833) However, judging by countless examples, does it seem that it has ever worked?
Therefore, if I were to commit some necessary imprecation here, (but to do so with a slightly zany and contrived vernacular so as to equivocate making too fine a point), is it so far fetched to postulate that Sri Lanka might be an exemplum for a country where democracy doesn't work, and to intumesce on it, presuppose that total democracy is just not so incontrovertibly nonpareil?
Could it be that the quiddity of Sri Lankans make them not the best placed to adjudicate their own destiny? We are so used to people choosing their own representatives being treated as so beatific, and any suggestion that people may not be best placed to do so allowing to their own gullibility to get swayed is so fiercely castigated, that they are summarily precluded from attaining the very erudition to choose their own destiny deftly at the first place?
Would it be so that if they were to instead be lead along a destiny of not their own choosing, but done so with a rigid, proven framework to transition the country from a hapless welfare state to a self-fulfilling economy, it would result in a far better outcome than being so contingent on a philistine populace to choose their own destiny and failing continuously?
I know this very thought can be exegeted as a plot by the ruling class to keep the country in a perpetual state of dereliction, but what if the very reason behind such a ruling class is the aforesaid quiddity of the Sri Lankans to not being best placed to choose their own destiny? We are continually prodded to believe that educating the philistine of the ills that encumber them and then letting them choose their destiny is the way forward, and we keep hoping it will happen someday. What if we are too blindsided to fathom that it is an implausible dream?
Therefore, would it be so aberrant to envision a period of intransigent economic and social restructuring, while enduring any and all efforts to impede it, be it may flouting certain droits, at the end of which there can be a real way out of this perpetual mediocrity than hoping for a platitudinous total democracy to do it?
In simpler terms, what if obstruction of democracy and an unwavering, harsh, forced push is a necessary step for a country with a majority of gullibles to transition them into a level where they are literate enough to formulate a working democracy? What if the only way to a fruitful democracy is to take away democracy temporarily?
Are we too afraid to ponder this simple question?
Therefore, if I were to commit some necessary imprecation here, (but to do so with a slightly zany and contrived vernacular so as to equivocate making too fine a point), is it so far fetched to postulate that Sri Lanka might be an exemplum for a country where democracy doesn't work, and to intumesce on it, presuppose that total democracy is just not so incontrovertibly nonpareil?
Could it be that the quiddity of Sri Lankans make them not the best placed to adjudicate their own destiny? We are so used to people choosing their own representatives being treated as so beatific, and any suggestion that people may not be best placed to do so allowing to their own gullibility to get swayed is so fiercely castigated, that they are summarily precluded from attaining the very erudition to choose their own destiny deftly at the first place?
Would it be so that if they were to instead be lead along a destiny of not their own choosing, but done so with a rigid, proven framework to transition the country from a hapless welfare state to a self-fulfilling economy, it would result in a far better outcome than being so contingent on a philistine populace to choose their own destiny and failing continuously?
I know this very thought can be exegeted as a plot by the ruling class to keep the country in a perpetual state of dereliction, but what if the very reason behind such a ruling class is the aforesaid quiddity of the Sri Lankans to not being best placed to choose their own destiny? We are continually prodded to believe that educating the philistine of the ills that encumber them and then letting them choose their destiny is the way forward, and we keep hoping it will happen someday. What if we are too blindsided to fathom that it is an implausible dream?
Therefore, would it be so aberrant to envision a period of intransigent economic and social restructuring, while enduring any and all efforts to impede it, be it may flouting certain droits, at the end of which there can be a real way out of this perpetual mediocrity than hoping for a platitudinous total democracy to do it?
In simpler terms, what if obstruction of democracy and an unwavering, harsh, forced push is a necessary step for a country with a majority of gullibles to transition them into a level where they are literate enough to formulate a working democracy? What if the only way to a fruitful democracy is to take away democracy temporarily?
Are we too afraid to ponder this simple question?
Last edited:
